Skip to main content

About your Search

20130126
20130203
STATION
CSPAN2 5
CNN 3
CNNW 3
KQED (PBS) 3
KRCB (PBS) 2
CSPAN 1
MSNBC 1
MSNBCW 1
WETA 1
WJZ (CBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 23
Search Results 0 to 22 of about 23 (some duplicates have been removed)
now. nato troops are starting to withdraw. what kind of country are they leaving behind? we're in afghanistan and he sent us this report. >> the afghan capital of kabul is a bustling city. 100,000 troops are anywhere to be seen. they're starting to leave. he tells me afghanistan is a different place from when they arrived 11 years ago. it is remarkable how things have progressed. health care is very different to what it was. education has moved on hugely. i think in terms of the progress to the things we would understand, and there has been a momentum. it has progressed to an extraordinary way. >> the taliban had not gone away. soon afghan security forces will have to fight them on their own. the man who led the intelligence war for most of the last 10 years said the attacks are set to get worse. >> it reduces this. the taliban are going to change their tactics. they are going to modify their strategy. there are going to do more and more spectacular attacks. >> like this one on our first morning in cobble, a triple suicide bombing. officials told us on average there are four
of the regime of syrian president assad and the timing couldn't be any worse because the first of six nato patriot missile batteries are operational on turkey's border with syria. the missiles, partly run by u.s. troops. could war in syria bring the u.s. and iran interest an all-out war? joining me a former state department senior adviser and principle at d.c. international advisory, great to see you, christian. thanks. we are not mincing words when we say iran has come out strongest yet, even saying to saying to t. people who want to help the thousands who were in camples, who were killed, who were injured and iran is saying, start up with syria -- even try to help -- and you are at war with us. what does that mean? know, iran love this is syrian regime. it's so important to iran because iran uses syria to control what it considers to be its near abroad, export terrorism, to strike against not just israel, but other western interests, including the u.s. and citizens in places like lebanon, to have its tentacles deep into gaza. it's important for iran. it's doubling down on that. also, you
to intervene. >> retired general wesley clark is the former nato commander, retired air force colonel cedric layton is a former intelligence of a certificate. general clark, let me start with you. barbara starr just reported the algerian government has not been continuing, the cia has tried to piece this together themselves. this makes it very complicated and much more difficult. but only now, more than a week later, the u.s. government is connecting the dots which at least from when we talked to omar on the day of the attack seemed to be perhaps visible very early on. what is causing the delay? >> i would suspect the algerian government's quite embarrassed by the poor results. they've been criticized roundly by other western countries for not running a very effective operation. had a lot of people killed in the operation. it's not the way it's done. they pushed it up, they accelerated it, they simply don't have the sophisticated special ops capabilities for hostage rescue capabilities that western countries have. but eventually, i'm convinced, they will share information. we're going to fin
organization. it embraces a marxist leninist ideology. it is anti-imperialist, anti-u.s. and anti-nato for that matter. it has attacked u.s. interests and facilities during and before and after the first gulf war. but they hadn't done anything for a long time. so today is the first after, you know, a long break that they had attacked. u.s. embassy here in ankara. >> to you do we know how clear the evidence is that points to them? and i ask this because i've seen some terrorism experts here in the u.s. questioning about whether the turkish government has rushed to judgement in pinpointing this group, particularly because there are any number of groups operating in turky, capable of such violence. >> true there are a number of terrorist organizations from, you know, extremist leftist to kurdish to islamist terrorist organizations operating in turkey. i wouldn't go into speculating further than what the turkish authorities have provided to the turkish media. and we're hoping that the coming days we are going to have more details as to why this happened and why, whoever targeted the u.s. e
-imperialist anti-u.s. and anti-nato for that matter. it has attacked u.s. interests and facilities during and before and after the first gulf war. but they hadn't done anything for a long time. so today is the first after you know a long break that they had attacked. u.s. embassy here in ankara. >> to you do we know how clear the evidence is that points to them? and i ask this because i've seen some terrorism experts here in the u.s. questioning about whether the turkish government has rushed to judgement in pinpointing this group particularly because there are any number of groups operating in turky capable of such violence. >> true there are a number of terrorist organizations from, you know extremist leftist to kurdish to islamist terrorist organizations operating in turkey. i wouldn't go into speculating further than what the turkish authorities have provided to the turkish media. and we're hoping that the coming days we are going to have more details as to why this happened and why whoever targeted the u.s. embassy today had done so we don't know really much detail tonight. >> tulin
of the nato intervention. as someone who's studied this region and i have to say i was reading your congressional testimony about north africa yesterday, it's incredibly prophetic, you've gone before congress many times, how much do you see the intervention in libya as a moment that pushed us toward these effects we're now seeing? >> i think it did push us entirely. the question for me was, was it intended, was it ignored? because i think where i differ with some people, we have to remember what happened before the intervention. we have to remember that they requested intervention. we have to remember that gadhafi was threatening to hand down all the people in the streets. we also have to remember that at that time the revolution had started in tunisia and it had jumped to egypt and so it seemed to me that if you have a choice between not allowing people to be mowed down in the streets, you do that. now the link i see with other places is once you intervene, probably the intervention is always easy, it is the aftermath. >> that's what we learned. >> and i think the question that i h
working at the nsc on detail and nato headquarters, the middle east and the pentagon. pentagon. he was adviser to four presidents, president obama asked them to lead his afghanistan-pakistan paula's review in early 2009, and do that for a couple of months before apple first returning to brookings. bruce has written two books in the time has been a, a third is about to come out and i will mention that in the second of the first two were about al qaeda and then about the is pakistan relationship. so the search for al qaeda, the deadly embrace, his new book coming out next month is avoiding armageddon. it's a story by the u.s.-india pakistan relationship and crisis management over the last half-century or so. general stan mcchrystal is a 1976 graduate of west point, spent 34 years in u.s. army, retiring as a four-star general the summer 2010. he has been command in afghanistan. use the correct of the joint staff but perhaps the military circles most of all as i mentioned this five year period at joint special operations command makes a memorable and historic. general casey at his reti
lended to this. she's been one of the driving forces behind nato's no-fly zone over libya in order to prevent qadhafi from massacring his own people. and through deft diplomacy, she has slowly opened burma to the outside world. she's encouraging them to free political prisoners, hold parliamentary elections and finally permit foreign investment. and it's happening before our eyes. and, of course, she has taken special interest in the poorest nation in the western hemisphe hemisphere, an island nation right off of the east coast of the united states, less than an hour and a half flight time from miami. that's the island of haiti. the island nation of haiti on what is an island that christopher columbus was expected to have been the island that he landed, hispaniola now encompassing haiti and the dominican republic. and she has made haiti one of the top foreign policy projects, helping the impoverished island build back better after the devastating earthquake that killed over a quarter million people. in no small measure has her husband -- president clinton -- been a part of that att
that it was going to participate in a nato exercise to essentially dismantle the gadhafi regime in libya, i knew even as that decision was going to be taken, that there would be consequences throughout the sahel. the reason being that gadhafi provided a regime of stability in the sahel that was provided by his provision of direct economic benefits to the region, not only in terms of investment, but also in terms of direct transfers of moneys to the region. he was predictable upon his demise, not only would economic benefits be removed, but toureg soldiers in his islamic region would no longer be on the payroll, and no longer being in the payroll, they would then have to return to the countries of origin, primarily northern niger because they were no longer emerging employed. in the context of the demise, two arms depots were made available in tripoli, and heavy armorments were lewded from those depots and fell into the hands of those who would subsequently constitute and move forward with some secular resistant fighters in the north. that was the first point. the second point that we need to exa
as nato took the mission, the mission evolved into something different. but it is important to remember how it started. it is absolutely, i think, a fair question to say why did you act in libya in this circumstance under the doctrine, if you will, or the principle, if you will, of the responsibility to protect noncombat taxes -- b combat taxes, why did you choose to do that in libya and not choose -- or choose to not do that in other places? each circumstance, of course, is significantly different. and it has to be measured on its own merits. it also addresses, i think, the limits of power. military power does not solve all problems. and importantly in libya, there was aup security council resolution -- a u.n. security council resolution that called for this mission and authorized all available means. in syria there is no such security council resolution that would, that would provide the legal underpinning for an operation in syria similar to what was conducted in libya. so it's a great question, but there are significant differences, i think. i should caveat all of that by reminding
the french from being able to come into a country. they need to be able to stop nato from coming into countries on the continent. europe would not allow other foreigners to do this in europe. why would the africans allow this? they should not allow foreigners who colonized the bus and insulate us in the past to do this. these are our enemies. what is the true motive of the french for coming into mali? it is certainly not because they care. they are former colonial masters, people that enslaved us. these are our enemies. what is the reason they have come? certainly not because they care. guest: i think we are in agreement that most people -- the u.s. administration, the state department has noted in a statement that general ham said earlier also, everybody would like this to be an african-led solution. it's the only way to go ahead. unfortunately, although many of the african countries talk a great deal about getting involved, with the exception of a few. niger, i mentioned earlier. morocco has been leading on this, raising awareness on this issue for some time. mali, a year-and-a
with india. i could go on and on and on. nato expansion. all of the things we now take for granted were not initiatives of the clinton administration, they were initiatives of members of congress here on capitol hill who changed the world in a very meaningful way. and that is still an opportunity if only we recognize that it's something that we need to care about. sorry for my little speech, but you have two former capitol hill staffers here, so -- >> hi -- [inaudible] general question, how do we know when we've won? like with regard to the kind of counterterrorism, "zero dark thirty" movement. is there, like, a metric? how is -- does there -- >> repeat the question. the question is how do we know when we've won? >> don't worry about it. [laughter] we're in no danger of winning anytime soon. [laughter] this is, this has become a shib list because -- it's a fair question, obviously, what's your measure for success and how do we know when we've p stopped or when we can p sop. when we can stop. but we are so far away from that now, and we're further away from that now than when this presid
Search Results 0 to 22 of about 23 (some duplicates have been removed)